Talk:Moertus (4e Campaign Setting)

Delete Template

This is Not a duplication of my 3e setting. It is in fact an updated and rewritten setting for 4e based on my original setting. They are two totally different articles. Please be sure to read what you are Templating and be sure it is for the right reasons before acting hastily....I'm getting that creepy feeling that things are really starting to fall apart on this Wiki. As well if you add a Template please MOI the creator, but first use common sense please. -- Sepsis 13:53, 30 August 2009 (MDT)

This discussion should of been here first, before saying See Discussion. It is your job to make sure that that kind of information is easy to get to, not my job to hunt for it. Your rudeness can stop here as well.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:54, 30 August 2009 (MDT)

I have given more reasons. All this page does is link to particular 4e parts that can be used in the setting - and as such should just be a subpage of the main campaign setting. No need to break namespace norm for no reason. Campaign Settings should be usable in numerous editions, and you can always use all of this information in a single subpage, as it is still part of Moertus, and not inherently different.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:57, 30 August 2009 (MDT)

Actually, using my own reasoning, I apologize. The deletion template should be changed to a Move template.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:59, 30 August 2009 (MDT)

Sorry if my post seemed rude..but if you wanna play at that ; "...Here I am. What discussion?" seemed rude to me when I had been in the middle of typing my post apparently when you jumped on. You could have waited more then 1 minute before hopping on my butt, particularly when you where wrong...obviously wrong, which could have been avoided if you had read the ariticles before adding a Template. Again sorry if it seemed rude, but with recent events I'm very touchy about anyone going near my stuff. I was prepared to pull out of this Wiki before, and this makes me think I better do just that. Once more I apologize have a good day. -- Sepsis 14:04, 30 August 2009 (MDT)

Fair enough, but when your edit summary called me an idiot and then there is no discussion in question, I was prompted to be upset. I see your point, however, this is still part of the same CS. Therefore, it should be compiled with the main CS, not separated just because of edition. That way users can get to it from the single main Moertus page. It may not be a duplicate, but it is part of a whole. I'm also sorry that we got off on the wrong foot.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   14:07, 30 August 2009 (MDT)

Discussion

You undid my revision with the reasoning "See Discussion." Here I am. What discussion?   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:52, 30 August 2009 (MDT)

Move

This page contains information pertinent to the Moertus (3.5e Campaign Setting). It is not a different setting, just a compiling of information for users of that setting using Fourth Edition. As such, it should be moved to a subpage of the main campaign setting. Perhaps Fourth Edition (Moertus Supplement) and linked to from that CS's main page.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   14:04, 30 August 2009 (MDT)

Yes this is a different setting...it is the same world name, but none of the rule changes apply, the NPCs are different (even if they share names), different gods, different cosmology, different history, and in a day or two different planetary maps. Anyways do as you wish. I'll be copying my works elesewhere, after this much time to have my work messed with is too much. -- Sepsis 14:08, 30 August 2009 (MDT)

Then why does it have the same name? If it is different to the very core - then it could be considered a fourth edition variant. This is just making it harder and more confusing for users who may stumble upon it.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   14:12, 30 August 2009 (MDT)

It has the same name because I like it. As for confusing folks...well I send my Players to the page they need (3e for my 3e game...4e for my 4e game), I don't mind if others outside my game see or us my stuff (thats why I write them in standard format) but I really post my stuff for use in my games with my Players. I'm not naive enough to believe that too many others are going to use my work before they use thier own, so while it is nice for those outside my games to use my stuff, it is not my main concern. All 4e related Moertus material links to each other, as does all the 3e material (any who go to the 4e page will not find themselves looking at any of the 3e material and vice versa), someone would need to work at getting confused as all 4e material is clearly marked 4e (unless all the entries somehow got lumped into one generic catagory). If anything the 3e material should be changed from "DnD Campaign Setting" to "3.5e Campaign Setting" to clearly deliniate them. By mixing the articles together you will confuse folks, so I wouldn't suggest it, but as I said I'm not risking anything on this site anymore. I left once when admins couldn't decide if policy issues where done by majority vote, or by some rules written for another site (or some mix of the two), I came back just in time to see this catch up with the powers that be and cause some wierd mutiny. Now it seems I have to worry over articles I've had up for nearly a year, as well as those that have been here for several years. This is too much. -- Sepsis 14:35, 30 August 2009 (MDT)

This wiki is for everyone, not just a few people. Plus, Campaign Settings are not edition specific, or else Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and Eberron would of had to been dropped long ago. I'll drop this, but if you're going to get upset when people misunderstand something, you should acknowledge that it is your own fault that this information is so confusing and convoluted. It isn't the average users job to hunt down things to find out this is "different" from the other Moertus. I will, however, stand by my statement that this should be a subpage of Moertus, as you yourself above said it is based off of that - and therefore they do mesh a bit.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   14:40, 30 August 2009 (MDT)

As a final comment, it should be noted that that there is a huge difference between FR and Eberron from 3.5e to 4e and any article connected to those settings should clearly state if they are for the 3.5e incarnation or the new revamped (and rewritten) 4e versions of those settings. In both huge amounts of time has passed, details of the core races of those worlds are different, their cosmology and Gods have been revisted and in many ways changed...and this is just the beginning of the changes made between editions. So while you can say settings aren't edition specific, you are only partially right, because neither are Elves, Dwarves, Humans, Wizards, Fighters, Alignments, Armor, Spells, etc. but as the editions change core changes are made to each to update them to the new system and the changes that system brings (thus making 3e and 4e versions of all those things). Again I apologize if the information is too "confusing and convoluted" (the clear 4e in the title of all the 4e related articles can be so misleading, but it has worked for most so far), one also dosen't need to "hunt" for anything, at no point does any 4e article link to a 3e one...nor does a 3e article link to a 4e one, and both are clearly labeled differently (ie. DnD or 4e). I can't hold everyones hand if you missed the labels, then I would hope that by doing a little reading they could see the difference. But as I said all relevant articles to each setting is clearly labeled as such, at some point I had to assume Users would be able to know that if they wanted a setting for 4e they would look for one labeled so, and if looking for a 3e setting they would do the same. I will apologize again, but in using my material some deduction may need to be used. I try to keep any amount of guesswork out of my creations, but in some cases it can't be helped (without comprimising my work in my mind). I could see creating a singular catagory for Moertus, but I'm sure that in the end you would create the very confusion you seem to think exists now (please know I have had hundreds of visits and no one has ever told me they got lost, confused or misdirected when using this material, and I speak to quite a few of them on a semi-regular basis). Anyways I've said my last on this, please know I don't want bad blood between us (this site has seen enough of that recently), so I hope if we meet in the future we can work together on things, not against. -- Sepsis 15:20, 30 August 2009 (MDT)

You make some good and valid points, and I agree wholly on that last part. Really, its an issue with the wiki as a whole's precedent making it hard to "navigationally classify" (yes I made that up) this. If we eventually set up a way to make sure that the CSs are separated in the main edition pages, the problem would cease to exist.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   11:47, 18 September 2009 (MDT)

Rating

Can an admin rate this? I'd say that if we consider all the information with the 3.5 version, its a very solid 5. Not sure if that works, but there is a lot of good Moertus information on this site. Be nice if the creator somehow linked the two to help browsers, but taking both into accounts its a easy 5.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   22:01, 29 May 2011 (MDT)

Edit: Just tagging to see if this can be done.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   07:14, 28 August 2011 (MDT)

If someone wants to rate the CS here and explain their rating, I can add the rating to the page. I don't really want to go through all this right now, though. I do think that each CS should be judged on their own merit, however, so this page should be rated independently of the 3.5e version. --Badger 18:55, 28 August 2011 (MDT)